send_audio

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions E2EE, immediate sending, shared pipeline with send_file, and per-call limit. However, it omits details like error handling, security implications, or side effects, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and pipeline, then covers parameters and scope. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, input constraints, and target chat types. However, with no output schema, it lacks information about return values or error conditions. Missing details like file size limits or format support would also be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity of filePath and audioBase64 and by explaining that durationMs sets the player length. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it sends an E2EE audio message to a LINE conversation, using the same pipeline as send_file. This differentiates from other media tools but does not explicitly contrast with send_file beyond noting the shared pipeline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: exactly one of filePath or audioBase64, optional durationMs, works for 1:1/group/room, and one send per call. It does not explicitly state when to use this over send_file, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.